Why were these patches resent? What changed?
Everybody who is going to review these patches has already reviewed
them and now they need to review them all again?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

2009/10/29 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
>> Why were these patches resent? What changed?>> Everybody who is going to review these patches has already reviewed> them and now they need to review them all again?
I resent the patches because the iommu-helper change was not correct
and I introduced serious bug in bitmap_find_next_zero_area()
if align_mask != 0 in follow-up patch then those were dropped from
the -mm tree.
Only [PATCH 1/7] and [PATCH 2/7] have changes since the first submission of
this patch set.
* [PATCH 1/7]
- Rewrite bitmap_set() and bitmap_clear()
- Let bitmap_find_next_zero_area() check the last bit of the limit
- Add kerneldoc for bitmap_find_next_zero_area()
* [PATCH 2/7]
- Convert find_next_zero_area() to use bitmap_find_next_zero_area() correctly
iommu-helper doesn't want to search the last bit of the limist in bitmap
* [PATCH 3/7] - [PATCH 7/7]
- No changes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html